The First Domino Falls – Alex Smith to KC

Posted: February 27th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 144 Comments »

The offseason has begun.  The Niners traded QB Alex Smith to KC for a 2nd round pick this year and as high as a 2nd round pick next year.  The deal is in place, but won’t be official until March 12, when the new league year starts and trades can be done.  This deal affects the Eagles so that’s why I’m writing about it.

First up, this mean Nick Foles isn’t going to KC.  My guess is that the Chiefs tried to deal for him, but the Eagles wanted a high price.  Before you go ripping the Eagles for being greedy, this is just a guess.  Also, I think it is important to understand the logic that would go into the situation.

The Eagles weren’t looking to deal Foles.  He wasn’t a player they wanted to get rid of and simply asked for too much.  I genuinely believe Chip Kelly and Howie Roseman see Foles as a potential starter and weren’t about to just give him away for a 3rd round pick.  As I’ve explained before, if you deal him you have to turn around and spend that pick (or a higher one) on a QB to replace Foles.  You really aren’t gaining anything.  The only advantage would be in getting rid of Foles for a new QB.

Part of my thinking here is that Howie was negotiating with Andy.  They know how each other operate.  Trying to bluff Andy into a higher price isn’t as likely to be effective since he knows what the team thinks of Foles.  Andy doesn’t know Chip’s feelings, but he would know how the scouts and Howie felt.  Those guys graded players each week.  Either there was a buzz in the building on Foles or there wasn’t.

I could be wrong and Howie could have over-played the situation, but that just doesn’t seem like the likely scenario to me.  If Chip doesn’t want Foles around, then you have to get the maximum you can for him, but a deal must get done.

* * * * *

This deal also speaks volumes about the QB class.  In recent days I’ve been reading the thoughts of some Geno Smith supporters on Twitter.  These are draftniks who have watched every one of his games and are truly convinced he can be a star QB.  These guys started to make me think that maybe Smith could go #1 overall.  Andy knew he had to have a QB.  Geno isn’t perfect by a mile, but he is a talented passer that came from an offense that loved to throw the ball.  He averaged 40 pass attempts per game.  There was logic in matching Smith and Reid.

The fact that Reid made the deal for Alex Smith tells you that Andy isn’t high on these QBs.  And Andy loves college QBs.  He wanted to draft Matt Leinart and Vince Young in 2006.  He looked into Brady Quinn, but then took Kevin Kolb in 2007.  Andy loved Sam Bradford in 2009.  He drafted Mike Kafka in 2010.  Andy even had interest in Tim Tebow.  There are reports that Andy looked into Peyton Manning and RG3 last spring.  I can’t confirm that.  The Eagles did show interest in Ryan Tannehill.  Andy loved Russell Wilson and then drafted Nick Foles.  Andy doesn’t care if a QB is black or white, short or tall, athletic or a pocket passer.  He loves them all equally.

For him to deal for Alex Smith shows you that Andy didn’t see anyone worth the #1 pick and that he didn’t see anyone who was better than Alex Smith.  Let that sink in for a minute.  Alex has posted good numbers in the last 1 1/2 years, but let’s not mistake him for a high level starting QB.  Alex played well for SF because they had a good OL, they ran the ball, and they did put him in position to succeed.  Smith never threw more than 38 passes in a game.  He only threw 35 or more passes 3 times.  Nick Foles had 3 games this year with more than 45 pass attempts.

If Big Red tries to go pass heavy with Alex Smith, the Chiefs are doomed and Reid will be fired by the end of 2014.  Jay Glazer reported on Twitter that the Chiefs made a commitment to Smith.  Alex didn’t want to go babysit a rookie somewhere else.  He wants to be the starter.  KC is giving him that opportunity, but I can’t help thinking of the old saying…”Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.”  Alex is going to get to be a starting QB in a passing offense.  I wish him well, but have my doubts that it will work well.  Reid must be more balanced or he’s going to follow in the footsteps of Buddy Ryan, Rich Kotite, and Ray Rhodes as Eagles coaches who failed at their next stop.

* * * * *

The deal also makes it likely that the Chiefs will take an OT at #1.  I still have Luke Joeckel rated as the best LT prospect.  This is a bad thing if the Eagles wanted Joeckel to fall to #4.  I don’t know that they did.

It could be good if there is some prospect that get to #4 and the Eagles wanted that guy or some team behind us wants that guy.  Too many names to speculate here.

The trade may not mean a thing.  The Eagles could be locked into some prospect and an OT going #1 means nothing.

SF now has 15 picks for the upcoming draft.  Doug Farrar of Yahoo Sports made an interesting suggestion.  Almost everyone else in the world was busy speculating that the Niners could now go after CB Darrelle Revis in a trade.  Farrar made the point that SF could move up in the Top 10 to get an impact DT.  Once Justin Smith got hurt last year, their defense fell apart.

If SF offered you pick #31, both 2nd rounders, and a 3rd round pick for #4…would you take it?  That’s a long way to drop, but would get you a bunch of picks.  Deals like that almost never happen so don’t expect it to, but it is fun to speculate and imagine trying to load up on rookies in a draft that lacks elite talent, but is deep.

* * * * *

Speaking of the Niners, they have a free agent DL named Ricky Jean-Francois that might be of interest.  Brandon Lee put together a nice piece on him over at BGN.

Geoff Mosher posted a Combine notebook for CSN. He’s got lots of good tidbits in there.  I would love to give truth serum to Jeff Stoutland and Chip Kelly to find out what they think of Danny Watkins.  If they think there is a good chance he can be a solid starter this year, that helps the OL quite a bit.  Herremans can slide to LT if needed.  Dennis Kelly is the backup RT. You still need to get younger, but that’s very different than lacking 5 starters you believe in.


144 Comments on “The First Domino Falls – Alex Smith to KC”

  1. 1 Phils Goodman said at 4:26 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Re: Keeping Nnamdi

    Still not cut. The Eagles are allergic to dead cap space. Nnamdi has said he would prefer to be here. The Eagles would prefer for him to be here (at the right price). Otherwise they would have just cut him already. The question is if they can agree to a new deal. I think there is enough motivation on both sides to work it out. The question next year is what his role will be. DRC appears likely to depart, but I don’t think you can just pencil in Nnamdi as a starter. I think they will try to sign at least one starting caliber CB and draft another with that potential.

    Nnamdi’s best skills at the moment remain pressing on big, physical receivers and covering tight ends. Those two things could make him a useful situational player. What other snaps he could win would remain to be seen.

  2. 2 TommyLawlor said at 4:41 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    It is possible that Nnamdi could be used in the slot. Maybe Boykin goes outside. Maybe he becomes the #4 CB.

  3. 3 holeplug said at 4:57 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    He was a lot better in the slot the last 2 years than outside. I don’t think he can play outside anymore against 4.3 guys. Julio Jones proved that last year.

  4. 4 ACViking said at 5:22 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    And the year before, along with some 1st year guy named Cruz

  5. 5 Phils Goodman said at 5:39 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    In hindsight, that wasn’t as pathetic a showing as it first appeared. Cruz has picked up 2,600+ yards beating a lot of DBs in his first two years. At the time he toasted Nnamdi, he was an unheralded unknown.

  6. 6 D3Keith said at 6:28 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Also if you’ll remember, the bad play against Cruz was an eight-yard out that NA and KC missed the tackle and Cruz turned into a 74-yard TD. NA also misplayed a jump ball vs. VC at the goal line in that game, but if those guys make a tackle they each should make, we aren’t remembering that game as an epic torching.

    I’m in the “for $4m+, might as well get some use out of NA” camp. I wouldn’t shed a tear if he was gone, but it’d be nice if he was a part of something here and didn’t go out on such a sour note. Maybe with a decent year or two we don’t remember that move as so disappointing, even if he ends up being overpaid.

    I don’t think there’s any chance NA is #4 CB and neither is Boykin, unless he plays his way out of the job. Bite the bullet on NA before you retard Boykin’s growth … although it is nice to have depth. One FA signing and one draft pick and the Eagles could be flush with CBs again.

  7. 7 Iskar36 said at 6:39 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I was a bit confused what you meant at the end. When you say “bite the bullet on NA” do you mean cut him and deal with the dead money? I guess I’m confused because that doesn’t match your comment above of “I’m in the “for $5m_, might as well get some use out of NA” camp.”

  8. 8 D3Keith said at 6:50 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Yeah it was a confusing thought process. Sometimes I think my posts out as I’m typing.

    I think our dislike for NA/disappointment as fans colors the discussion. I also think the idea that NA is guaranteed $4m is pretty significant, so when you take the emotion out of it … seems like it’s at least worth a shot at trying to get something for that investment.

    Two scenarios in which it would do more harm than good: If his presence undermines the culture Coach Kelly is trying to establish, or if it undermines the growth of a promising young player.

    As it stands, the Eagles have a lot of unsure things at corner, and are on the hook for at least $4m, so it makes sense to have NA in the fold. If they were to land an FA corner and draft one and those guys, coupled with Boykin, Marsh, Hughes, Lindley, were the top three and/or gave the Eagles enough depth that you didn’t need NA or that he bumps someone like Boykin off the field, in that case I’d be fine letting him go. Wouldn’t want him here sulking, or blocking the path of someone who is going to contribute an equal amount or more, plus has a future with the team.

  9. 9 Iskar36 said at 7:01 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Got it. I agree that it is important to take the emotions out. But if you are going to move Nnamdi to slot CB, with the amount of cap space we have, I think you are causing more harm than good, especially considering that he doesn’t seem to be a quality locker room guy (and I’m talking about the finger pointing and lack of ownership of his mistakes. Not the eating-lunch-in-his-car-non-story).

  10. 10 Iskar36 said at 5:06 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    At 31 (32 at the beginning of the season), Nnamdi is clearly not in the long term plans, regardless of if they restructure his contract or not. With that in mind, does it make sense to slow down Boykin’s progress and also demote him after a good rookie season? I think moving Boykin to #4 CB would be sending absolutely the wrong message and be completely the wrong move.

  11. 11 Alex Karklins said at 5:19 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I read Tommy’s statement as: Nnamdi could be the #4 CB.

  12. 12 Iskar36 said at 5:26 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    If that’s the case, I misread what Tommy was saying. That being said, considering regardless of what happens Nnamdi will get $4 Mil next year + whatever some team pays him if/when they sign him, I can’t imagine a scenario where he take less than 5-6 Mil to stay in Philly unless he has some major reason to want to stay in Philadelphia (which I can’t see why he would). Can you really pay 5-6 Mil to your #4 CB? Is there even any value to doing that?

  13. 13 Phils Goodman said at 5:35 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    You’re paying $4M no matter what. So it’s paying $1-2M extra for a situational CB vs $4M for nothing.

  14. 14 D3FB said at 9:04 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Maybe the man just really enjoys eating a Pat’s in his car.

  15. 15 Iskar36 said at 10:16 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    That would explain why he can’t keep up with fast WRs anymore.

  16. 16 TommyLawlor said at 5:30 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    No, Nnamdi as #3, Boykin #4.

  17. 17 Alex Karklins said at 5:59 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    What, we don’t want the league’s most expensive #4 corner?

  18. 18 Phils Goodman said at 4:28 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Now I officially switch gears from hoping a team in front of us doesn’t get a enamored with Joeckel to hoping a team in front of us doesn’t get anamored with Floyd.

  19. 19 TommyLawlor said at 4:43 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I’ll give the Chiefs #35 for their 1st rounder next year. Unfortunately, Andy would never do that.

    Floyd is a guy that teams behind us could target. I was thinking of him in regard to SF in the trade scenario I listed.

  20. 20 Vinícius Gonçalves said at 4:45 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    If we could get a trade similar to the one that Falcons did to get Julio Jones I would love it. Specially if we can get a extra 1st next year abd use it to get a great qb if Foles dont be great (i think he will win the starting job over vick). Maybe the Gamble hire could be good in a way to make this deal. If he knows someone SF loves he can make a call to get a deal done.

  21. 21 TommyLawlor said at 4:55 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    We won’t get the same think CLE did. Julio Jones was a really good prospect. If not for AJ Green, he’d have gotten more hype. There is no player in this class at that level.

    I do agree it would be great to pull off a big deal like that.

  22. 22 Iskar36 said at 5:00 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    We all would love a trade like that in this draft, but the issue with that is there has to be a guy that some team not only loves and believes to be a true difference maker (which consensus suggests there isn’t a guy like that), but that team also has to believe the player they target is substantially better than the several guys they could get if they just stay where they are in the draft. I think a trade is possible, but my guess is that if we do manage to find a trade worth doing, it is substantially more likely that we trade down 5 or so spots at most rather than 20+. In a draft that everyone is labeling as deep but lacking top end talent, the cost of moving up that substantially is greater than in a draft with elite talent at the top end or one that is not as deep.

  23. 23 Arby1 said at 7:46 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    The other problem is that Jacksonville has already said they’d trade out and with Andy’s history, KC might wanna too. If 3 of the top 4 teams are willing to trade, #4 gets diluted offers. And as you suggest, the value of the top picks is relatively consistent through the top 12 to 14 as things stand now. My guess is we pick at 4.

  24. 24 Scott J said at 4:51 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I think it’s as simple as Kelly wanting Foles to compete this year. Foles is as good as any QB in the draft. And if they trade Foles, our QB situation looks really bad. Foles can hold down the fort until next years draft.

  25. 25 TommyLawlor said at 4:54 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I do think Kelly wants competition.

  26. 26 D-von said at 5:02 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Exactly. Its pretty simple. Chip Kelly does not know what he has yet. A smart coach would want to keep his core and young players around until he knows exactly what he has in them. Like I said before and say it for the umpteenth time: No Qb will be traded until during or after Training Camp.

  27. 27 Phils Goodman said at 5:00 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    My goodness the 49ers are loaded. Potential dynasty (or whatever the modern equivalent would be). They could convert all of this into a Patriots-esque run with another good draft.

  28. 28 ACViking said at 5:26 PM on February 27th, 2013:


    I think SF could have a Patriots-esque run withouth drafting another player.

    All they need is for Kaepernick to become a Top 3 QB.

    Hell, if Foles did that, the Eagles could be close to a run like that, too. It’s what’s wrong with the NFL . . . in the eye of this octogenarian (as someone once described me).

  29. 29 xlGmanlx said at 6:34 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Statistics show that they won’t win a SB since they lost their first shot with this regime. They might be dominant, but if you check the stats, they are against them.

  30. 30 Phils Goodman said at 6:41 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    That would be trivia, not statistics.

  31. 31 xlGmanlx said at 6:47 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    so you’re one of those guys, got it!

  32. 32 Iskar36 said at 6:41 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I think it would be hard to find any statistic that would support a team being a dynasty. They are so rare that I would guess generally speaking, they are the exception to the “statistical rules.”

  33. 33 xlGmanlx said at 6:44 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Huh? Look at the statistics of coaches who make it to the SB and don’t win, if it is their first shot, they usually never win a SB. While they might do well W-L, past history shows that this coaching regime in SF won’t win the lombardi. Granted, they could buck the trend, but the numbers aren’t on their side.

  34. 34 Iskar36 said at 6:55 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    The numbers for winning a superbowl in the first place are never on any teams side. Statistically, every team has just a 1/32 chance of winning any given season. I don’t even have to look at the history to know that statistically speaking, it is unlikely that SF will win the Super Bowl. So yea, if a coach did not win in their first shot, they usually never win a SB is a very likely outcome, but that’s not the point. The point is that SF is a very good team as constructed right now. On top of that, they have 15 picks in this years draft which is supposed to be very deep. So while the statistics are not “favorable,” that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

    I’m not even arguing whether they are built to become a dynasty or not. I’m just saying that using statistics in this case doesn’t seem to be a very valuable tool.

  35. 35 D3Keith said at 10:57 PM on February 27th, 2013:


  36. 36 Neil said at 6:56 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Numbers are meaningless because none of those others were Jim Harbaugh running this team in this NFL.

  37. 37 Stephen Stempo said at 6:08 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    I’m sorry but I have to ask. Are you trolling?

  38. 38 xlGmanlx said at 1:00 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    No you’re right, you’re sorry

  39. 39 Stephen Stempo said at 10:38 AM on March 1st, 2013:

    It’s the only logical reason to explain you belief in magic.

  40. 40 xlGmanlx said at 12:06 PM on March 1st, 2013:

    Something that no doubt is your specialty or occupation.

  41. 41 Stephen Stempo said at 6:11 PM on March 3rd, 2013:

    Haha. Even if it was I still wouldn’t pretend to believe in it. You’re understanding of numbers reminds me of someone who believes in psychics.

  42. 42 D3Keith said at 6:44 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Everything has never happened until it happens.

    There was a time John Elway and Peyton Manning could never win the big game.

  43. 43 xlGmanlx said at 7:20 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Well, we can all cherry pick what we want to prove what we want, but the majority shows, Jim won’t win a SB.

  44. 44 D3Keith said at 8:17 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Sorry, I just think it’s a silly thing to keep repeating. The fact something hasn’t happened before in a relatively limited sample size doesn’t preclude from happening in the future.

    On one hand you have these arguments:
    – 15 draft picks
    – Young quarterback who has started half a season and likely hasn’t reached his potential
    – Head coach who’s gone to championship game and super bowl in two seasons in NFL
    – competent GM
    – roster returning almost intact from team that had four shots from inside the 15 to win a Super Bowl

    Then you have your argument:
    Statistics say if they don’t win it on their first try, they never will.

    If you’d care to elaborate, I have an open mind. Otherwise, your stat seems as cherry-picked as any blanket statement regarding who can or cannot win a Super Bowl. I think it tends to be a little more complex than “it’s never happened, therefore it never can.”

  45. 45 TommyLawlor said at 7:46 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    That’s an interesting nugget. I think it might be a bit flawed, though. Many teams peak and go to the SB. Everything goes right. Then they can’t duplicate the magic.

    SF doesn’t feel like a team that peaked. They feel like a team that will be knocking on the door for the next several years.

    We’ll see. Something to keep in mind.

  46. 46 D3Keith said at 9:34 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    That’s basically what I’m getting at too. A lot of teams that get to the Super Bowl have the mass free-agent exodus, and everyone gets fat off success. The 49ers didn’t win, and they may lose key guys like Dashon Goldson, Delanie Walker and Alex Smith, but their window seems wide-open for a while yet.

    It’s a weird stat, “if you don’t win in your first try, you probably won’t.” Plenty of teams that were capable of winning Super Bowls managed not to, and a lot of times in the dynasty era of the NFL the best team won and kept on winning, so it didn’t really matter who they were playing, i.e. who got there and didn’t get back and win. But this day and age and that day and age are very different times in NFL reality.

  47. 47 xlGmanlx said at 9:52 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I would say that something that has only happened a handful of times in the SB era would be something I would pay attention to. The other one for coaches that is key is no coach in the SB era has ever won a SB and then gone on to win a SB for another team.

  48. 48 D3Keith said at 10:56 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Sounds like circa 2005, you could also have used that logic to say that in the Super Bowl era, a team coached by a black man has never won a Super Bowl. Then it happened twice (Dungy in ’06 and Tomlin in ’08) in three years.

    (Those are both examples of first time coach/QB combo winners too if it makes you like your stat more).

    I have no problem acknowledging a trend. The Retreads Never Win Super Bowls thing was bandied about here in D.C. a lot when Shanahan was hired.

    I do think it’s silly to refer to trends within a sample size of less than 45, and a relevant sample size of probably less than 20, as hard and fast rules.

  49. 49 xlGmanlx said at 9:50 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    The odds are against them of ever winning a SB with this regime, not impossible, just highly unlikely. I believe the last one to do it was Vermeil in St. Louis. Hunt, Landri, Vermeil, and i’m probably missing some one, but in 40 years, that doesn’t bode well for Jim. Same thing with Kelly, if he makes it to seven years with the igg’s and doesn’t win the big one, chances are he won’t.

  50. 50 laeagle said at 9:40 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    That’s a very poor use of statistics. Statistics that show something has never happened have no context and thus no viability. They don’t take into account the specific circumstances of the thing being measured.

    For example, statistics would show that Kennedy would never be president, because there had never been a Catholic president prior. But if you were to base a bet on whether he would win or not solely on those statistics, you’d be a fool, because you’d be ignoring the specifics of the actual election at that time, his popularity, etc. Same thing with Obama’s election.

    And though it seems like there have been a lot of Super Bowls, in terms of sample size, 40 isn’t really much. Especially when measuring something like a dynasty that spans multiple years, with one Super Bowl per year.

  51. 51 xlGmanlx said at 9:48 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Lots of excuses and not a lot of substance. We can’t control the sample size, only analyze what it means. To me, this metric, along with another important one are often overlooked. It’s when some folks start calling for big name SB winning coaches to come to the iggles. Fact – No coach has ever won a super bowl with two different teams. And although you only want to deal in absolutes, most coaches win it within the first 7 years of being with a team, with some exceptions. I believe Cowher is the only one to have bucked the trend, most coaches are fired before their tenure is that long.

  52. 52 laeagle said at 9:50 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Man, slow your roll. No one is making excuses for anything. This isn’t a matter of dealing in absolutes. You just don’t understand statistics.
    Statistics without context are utterly useless. Statistically speaking, using your logic, it’s utterly impossible that I would have ever met my wife. Because prior to meeting her, I had never met her. But then I did. Statistics are not laws, they are probabilities, and saying that because something has never happened before that, statistically speaking, it never will (as opposed to ‘it is probable that it never will’), is foolishness. All you can say is that it might not be probable, but when the fact that you are assessing using statistics becomes more and more vague, those statistics become less and less useful.
    There are some valuable things to be learned from statistics, such as your example about coaches winning within 7 years. But an owner would be an idiot if he had a coach on the verge in year 7 and fired him just because of some blind faith in statistics without context.

  53. 53 xlGmanlx said at 10:05 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Its all good, just stating the facts that it is hard enough to win a SB, it is even harder to do if you lose your first shot at one. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but again probability is against Jim. I think to be dismissive of something like that is hasty is my point.

    RE: your wife, not sure it applies. This applies to an event being achieved with a losing outcome, clearly you won your SB the first time, in that you met your wife and capitalized on the opportunity, Harbaugh did not.

    One of the things that drew me to this site and phillymag is their use of metrics and introduction of metrics that I hadn’t considered. I’m surprised this one met with such resistance from what seemed like an above average knowledge base.

  54. 54 Neil said at 10:13 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Woah, here’s the problem.

    “Its all good, just stating the facts that it is hard enough to win a SB, it is even harder to do if you lose your first shot at one.”

    This is silly. By what means does losing a super bowl make winning a super bowl in the future harder?

  55. 55 xlGmanlx said at 10:34 PM on February 27th, 2013:


  56. 56 Neil said at 10:59 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Nah, man, you got to point to something that has a clear, describable effect on a superbowl loser. Maybe superbowl losers just lose focus and drive because of the sheer disappointment of the experience, you know? You can say looking at your stat what we already knew; winning a super bowl is not likely to happen to any given coach. What I think would be interesting is, is a superbowl winner more likely to win a second super bowl than the loser to make it back and finally win it. That statistical finding would only demonstrate that it’s POSSIBLE something happens to the superbowl loser that makes winning one in the future harder. In order to prove it, you would have to isolate and describe all of the things that make that happen. Until you can do that, there is no way to know if the statistic describes the phenomenon you think it does or if it’s just random outcomes with no bigger meaning.

  57. 57 D3Keith said at 11:05 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    you got to point to something that has a clear, describable effect on a superbowl loser.

    I think it’s pretty clear he doesn’t have anything to point to. A couple of us have been open to better reasoning, but it’s not showing up. If you could present something that says Super Bowl losers tend to lose free agents or make faulty draft choices (maybe need sted BPA) because they believe they are close, then we’d all buy it.

    We can all agree that the probability of San Francisco winning a Super Bowl in the future isn’t that great. What we haven’t seen is anything beyond a trend in a small sample size that says a coach/QB combo losing in their first visit will not be able to win one in the future.

  58. 58 Neil said at 11:21 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Indeed, but my message is designed in order to make him see what I mean, not tell him he’s wrong (which he is). But I think another important point I should add is that sample size in any statistic doesn’t matter until you can explain and prove WHY what you believe to be true is true. Even if we had several millenia of superbowl data that showed a strong pattern in favour of superbowl winners winning future super bowls, do winning coaches win more subsequent superbowls because losing the super bowl wrecks the losing team or because superbowl winning coaches are just better coaches? How could we prove it’s one or the other?

  59. 59 D3Keith said at 11:39 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I’m with you. My first reply to him said I had an open mind and was willing to be convinced if he elaborated. There’s no real point in trying to turn message-board discussions that should enlighten everyone into battles to be “won.”

    I guess I was just reaching my point of “there’s no point in going any further with this because there’s nothing else here” and I started projecting it on to others. My B.

    I think you’re on the right track. There are many reasons why something that has been true so far could be true, and could continue to be true, but without any theory behind it, it’s just something to regurgitate.

  60. 60 Neil said at 11:48 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    All good, G.

    Here’s the finest distillation of my point I’ve been able to muster right now: the strength of any proposition about the nature of reality must be the strength of the logic, not the statistical evidence. If the logic is sound, the statistical evidence will agree with it. And even then, the logic might still be wrong, and a different explanation can explain the same data.

  61. 61 laeagle said at 10:18 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Still not sure I agree. Correlation and causality are not the same thing. There could be some other trend those other coaches are succumbing to, where the fact that they got there once before is just an external, unrelated factor. Again, hard to tell with such a small sample size. But with Harbaugh, you’re talking about a guy who has only coached 2 years in the league and who has a young and loaded team. I don’t think the statistics you are citing account for that, and while I agree that it is difficult to establish a dynasty at all in the current NFL (without cheating), I would say that the Niners have a better chance than most, because of the other external factors I cited. Your statistical model doesn’t account for those kinds of factors, and so it’s a poor model. Though it’s hard to construct a better statistical model, again because of the small sample size.
    Don’t make me quote Benjamin Disraeli…

  62. 62 D3Keith said at 11:01 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    “what seemed like an above average knowledge base.”

    That knowledge base is why you’re running into a such resistance for your silly statements. Over on Lonewolf would be calling you God.

  63. 63 laeagle said at 2:47 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Ooh, that’s a low blow.

  64. 64 Iskar36 said at 10:20 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    You can’t control the sample size, but that doesn’t mean the sample size doesn’t matter. PG put it best. The information you’re providing is no more than trivia. It is not “statistics” in any mathematical sense.

  65. 65 xlGmanlx said at 10:28 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    oh i guess because he said so right? Ha, way to stay on the bench

  66. 66 Iskar36 said at 12:00 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    So here are the “stats” you are working with.

    There are 31 different coaches who have lost a Super Bowl. Of those 31, 4 of them lost a Super Bowl after having already won one, leaving 27 coaches who fit the criteria of coaches who have lost their first Super Bowl. Of those 27 coaches, there are actually 3 coaches who have won a Super Bowl afterwards (Hank Stram, Don Shula, Tom Landry). In fact, of those three coaches, two of them (Don Shula and Tom Landry) won two Super Bowls each. So in fact, considering there is a 1 in 32 chance that any team wins a Super Bowl, coaches who have lost their first Super Bowl are over represented among the coaches who have won Super Bowls. Furthermore, they are incredibly over represented among coaches who have won multiple Super Bowls (dynasties).

    Just saying…

  67. 67 jshort said at 10:09 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Your post brought to mind Weeb Ewbank. I was thinking he did win SB’s with two different teams. Not quite.

  68. 68 Tyler said at 11:13 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    As others point out, that’s a really poor use of statistics. But beyond that, it’s actually wrong. Coaches who lost their first super bowl but won later:
    Don Shula
    Tom Landry
    Hank Stram
    Dick Vermeil (but with different team)
    Bill Cowher

    So, yeah, it might not be common to win after losing a SB, but it’s happened more often than simple statistics would suggest.

  69. 69 Iskar36 said at 12:27 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Oops, I didn’t notice your post, but I just posted the same thing further down (although I missed Vermeil and Cowher, which makes it even more ridiculous).

  70. 70 Tyler said at 8:43 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    It’s all good, and you took it a step further to try and demonstrate how these examples easily invalidate his assertion. I usually don’t post much, but was surprised no one had pointed this out yet (though the more general discussion on how he, even if he had been right, was making poor use of statistics is a better conversation)

  71. 71 illadelphia21 said at 5:06 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I’m gonna go w/ the eagles, mainly howie “splash” roseman overplayed his hand yet again and now we’re S.O.L. Although I’m no insider, like most of you, think back to 2011 when we were shopping Asante around! Reports were that we had Detroit on the hook for a 2nd round draft pick. Yet the eagles decided to play hard ball and got greedy and as a result walked away with an amazing 7th round pick from Atlanta?! I put that on splash!!! It’s his job as a GM to get these type of deals done. So please no, ‘that was a Reid decision’.
    If as a gm u can’t make these type of deals w/o approval from the head coach then you are nothing more than a puppet who doesn’t deserve the job in the 1st place. As a GM if you can’t make these type of deals w/o continually getting greedy and over-valuing, then your incompetent and thusly do not deserve your job.
    If Reid is that effin stupid enough 2 pay that insane price for Alex “Trent Dilfer Jr., Mr. 2 years ago i was a 1st round bust, Mr. I’ve only had 1 1/2 good seasons out of 8” fucking Smith…then we could have at leas got a 2nd or at the least, a 3rd and 4th for Foles. And I would have gladly taken the latter when 3/4 of our defense needs to be rebuilt and I absolutely love some of the mid to late round prospects in this draft, especially at the DB position. I definitely see some of those DBs and OLBs as upgrades over the garbage we have on the roster now…I’m looking at you Cheany, Coleman, Allen, Matthews, Dotwin, and Amsougha!!!!
    I have nothing against Foles, except his weak deep ball and please don’t give me the B.S. footwork excuse, I love the kids poise and navigation of the pocket. Other than that I don’t see anything special or anything that makes him a must have. Hell we would have had Russel Wilson if Seattle hadn’t beaten us to him. I see Foles being a possibly better Alex Smith. That’s the cieling. I don’t even see him being a Flacco and can’t imagine him being “Mr. Close my eyes, throw, and hope for the best, She-li Manning!

  72. 72 Anders said at 5:25 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    The coaches thought we would have an all star CB trio and was close to winning the SB and therefor didnt trade him.

    You have no evidence off what was offered for Foles and so unless you do, why do you speculate so much?

  73. 73 TommyLawlor said at 5:34 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    The Asante deal didn’t happen because the Eagles decided to try and make the 3 CBs work. They were willing to deal Asante for a ransom, but if not wanted to play the 3 CBs together. Again, they weren’t out shopping Asante trying to get a deal.

    The mistake they made there was not realizing that the 3 CBs couldn’t work. Had they figured that out, the deal would have gotten done.

  74. 74 P_P_K said at 8:11 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    It burned me, too, that we ended up with such a lousy deal for Asante but I don’t blame the FO. They, and Andy, took a shot at the 3 cb idea, which seemed at the time to be workable. It was a gamble that didn’t pay off. Regarding the qbs, the verdict is still out on Foles and I’ll say it’s still out on A Smith, too.

  75. 75 Anders said at 7:03 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    We did end up getting Bryce Brown for Samuel tho

  76. 76 A_T_G said at 8:37 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I’m surprised I never heard Alex Smith’s middle name before. I guess when you have bland names like Alex and Smith to work with, you put a little sizzle in the middle.

  77. 77 Gregory Post said at 5:07 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    The only way we overplayed the situation is if KC asked for a 2nd rounder and we balked, trying to get more out of them. If it was for a 3rd rounder…no. We just spent a third rounder on Foles and would see minimal return. This QB class sucks. And Foles does still have a lot of potential.

  78. 78 D3Keith said at 6:21 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Also it doesn’t seem that anyone is considering this obviousness: That the Chiefs might have just preferred Smith to Foles and if the price was the same pick (the No. 2), KC took the QB it wanted more.

  79. 79 Phils Goodman said at 6:44 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    There is potentially another 2nd round pick from KC involved (2014).

  80. 80 D3Keith said at 9:38 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Yeah two 2s, including one that’s basically an extra-late 1, is a pretty good haul, and does suggest Foles for just a 2 would have been something the Chefs were open to.

    (that’s great, but who are the Chefs?)

  81. 81 Angry Amishman said at 5:08 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I’m in love with Milliner, but it all starts in the trenches. I’d be happy with Floyd or Fisher. Can’t have’em all.

  82. 82 ACViking said at 5:10 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Re: No Chance Reid Drafts Joekel No. 1 (based on comment in prior post)


    AR loves to move around on draft day.

    And he just gave up his No. 2 pick for A-Smith — the 33rd overall pick.

    I’d wager Andy want to get back a 2nd-Rounder, if he can — just as the Eagles did last year when they used their No. 4 to move up in Rd 1 to get F-Cox, but subsequently moved down in Rd 2 to get back a 4th-Rd pick.

    (Maybe the Eagles’ move in 2012 to get back their 4th-Rdr was entirely the handiwork of Roseman. I wouldn’t buy that, though, because the Eagles’ modus operandi during the Reid years was to trade around on draft day to collect picks.)

    AR can’t trade up this year in Rd 1. But he can trade down.

    If his draft board has Joekel, Fisher, and L-Johnson stacked together, I’d wager Reid would want to move out of the overall No. 1 spot to get ammo to get back into Round 2.

    If I’m Andy Reid — having seen Jason Peters for 3 years sprinting downfield on screen passes — I might want to pass on Joekel, trade down, aim to
    recover his No. 2, and get OT Lane Johnson in Rd 1.

    Joekel may be very good. But you can’t teach the kind of speed that Johnson has.

    My money’s on AR making every effort to get out of the top spot to recover his 2nd Rd pick.

    Unless Reid sees Luke Joekel — or someone else — as an “Andrew Luck-can’t miss” player in a class by himself.

    And no one’s saying that about Joekel.

  83. 83 TommyLawlor said at 5:40 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    RE: Reid

    His weakness with the draft is knowing value. Remember, he was ready to use pick 14 on Winston Justice in 2006. Bunkley fell so we took him. We then moved up to pick 36 to get Justice. Andy was ready to go get his guy.

    And I think that’s part of the problem. Andy falls for prospects. He did this with Freddie Mitchell. He did this with Shawn Andrews. He did this with Kolb. When Andy sees “his guy”, he’s going to go get him. Cost isn’t a factor. Tom Heckert was the guru of knowing a player’s value and when to move up or back. Heckert was brilliant in this area. Howie shows promise, but we need to see a couple of more years before we know for sure how good he is.

    I do agree that Reid would love to get back a 2nd round pick, but I don’t know that anyone will want that pick.

  84. 84 ACViking said at 5:46 PM on February 27th, 2013:


    Your comment just tore the curtain back on the last 12 drafts.

    I never understood why Lurie broke his own rule (established in the Rhodes era) of giving his coach final say on draft day.

    You just proved how right Lurie was in 1997 and how wrong he was 4 years later.

    Crazy, great stuff. Love the historical take-aways.

  85. 85 Arby1 said at 7:38 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    The Truth will set you free! Praise God!

    (this is the harshest I’ve ever heard you on Andy’s drafts..)

  86. 86 P_P_K said at 8:15 PM on February 27th, 2013:


  87. 87 TommyLawlor said at 5:45 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    RE: trading back for extra picks

    If you are trying to fix multiple areas on a roster, moving back can be a big help. I’ll do a post on this rather than burying the info in the comments section.

    The key here really boils down to whether you draft well or not. If you do, brilliant. If you don’t, you’re trading star power for JAGs. That’s bad.

  88. 88 ACViking said at 5:53 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    That’s a bingo.

    This team has so many holes — if you count the number of high-quality players age 27 or less. (Cox, Kendricks, McCoy, D-Jax, maybe Kelce and Graham . . . but that’s it.)

    By the way, watch out for that Jamie Collins kid from So. Miss — the new LB U.

    I like the give-and-take on this issue . . . .

    It really is all about making the right picks — whether choosing at No. 4 overall or No. 40 overall.

    The Steelers built a dynasty with great drafting after Rd 1. So did the Cowboys back then.

    It can be done.

    And this is the draft to do it.

  89. 89 D3Keith said at 6:19 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I agree. I would do the deal given this particular draft class and these particular needs. You could add competition/starters at SAM, safety and CB or OL, and you would have enough ammo to jump up from 31 into the mid-20s if someone you coveted falls.

    31 and 35 (our own second) plus two more seconds? Day 2 would be a blast. And you’d have overnight after Round 1 to set your bearings on how you own Day 2.

    Would be interesting. But 4 and 35 is fine too.

  90. 90 ACViking said at 5:41 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Re: Keeping Foles


    1. Do you believe there was a price at which Kelly green-lights trading Foles?

    2. If Kelly, short of getting a No. 1 for Foles, won’t trade him because CK really does want to see Foles up close . . . then why re-sign Vick? Why not give Foles the job.

    I say that because if Foles can’t beat out Vick, Foles has lost his trade value. If CK anointed Foles the starter (as Gus Bradley apparently may have done), and Foles flops, then CK’s in the exact same spot — Foles’ trade value is way down.

    So, other than saying “competition,” why keep Vick?

    This all seems very odd to me.

  91. 91 TommyLawlor said at 5:48 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I think a 2nd rounder would have gotten Foles to KC, but I could be wrong. Maybe they were holding out for a 1st. We’re guessing at how much they like him.

    Don’t undersell the importance of competition. This is another subject I want to address in a post. When a new coach takes over, there is a real benefit to having players fight for their jobs. It sets a great tone for everyone. You see who’s competitive and who’s too comfortable. A new coach doesn’t want anyone comfortable. He wasn’t guys on the edge and feeling scared. That helps bring about change.

  92. 92 ACViking said at 5:56 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Agree on competition generally. But Foles strikes me a guy who’s very self-motivated. An exception to the rule.

    Great, great stuff today. Thanks for your hard work.

  93. 93 Knucklehead said at 12:14 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Perhaps Kelly is hoping that beating out Vick will cement Foles as a leader on the team.

  94. 94 Neil said at 1:02 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    This is a great point and a big benefit of keeping Vick. Either that or Vick wins the job and Kelly has a better QB available. It’s logical to want the team to lose to get a bridgewater type, but a coach can’t think like that. When you’re in the business, if you have an off switch for wanting to win, you won’t be in the business for long.

  95. 95 Ark87 said at 12:20 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    I’ve heard Vick doesn’t practice well (not saying he doesn’t work hard) even back in 2010. Same goes for preseason. I don’t see Vick beating out Foles based solely on practice and preseason. Hell I’ve heard Foles doesn’t really stick out in practice either, it’s totally plausible that Dixon wins this job…which blows my mind.

  96. 96 Tom Watkinson said at 10:34 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    One of 2 things occurred. Either howie overplayed his hand and got really greedy or big red likes smith better than roles and offered up more for smith. If the chiefs offer was the same for foles, I am extremely disappointed. Yes you still want a qb to develop but no reason we couldn’t use the 3d on a qb and get 2 more starters on defense in rd2. And if our franchise qb isnt in this draft, then why waste a 2d on one. If Andy only offered a 3d, I woulda held out for more. So the question is did Andy like smith more then folesand if so i think he is nuts. Rumors was that the market for smith was a 4th rider — did Andy miss that memo — anyone else agree Andy overpaid and smith isn’t a prolific passer??

  97. 97 ian_no_2 said at 6:16 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I think Andy’s decision is based on which QB he wanted the most. I have a hard time believing they would take Foles instead if at a discount, or Philly would be nutty enough not to let him go for a second and a conditional pick. Smith had an 100 rating last year, was the top pick in his draft class, and Andy thinks he can coach him well, and grab a developmental guy down the line.

    The reason why I mention the Draft Value Chart before is that usually the team trading up pays more value. The package you mentioned for a SF trade is a good one but it doesn’t match the value chart. If they really want 4, SF can pony up this and next year’s first and KC’s second, and that would be square on the chart assuming SF wins most of its games. Having an extra first next year may be QB-rific.

    It’s probable now Geno Smith will be on the board for Philly and there’s a good chance, maybe more than half, that someone will want to overpay for him. That’s the trading down scenario I like.

  98. 98 TommyLawlor said at 6:22 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    This is a weak top of the draft. I intentionally didn’t have the value match. Buyer’s market, not a seller’s market.

  99. 99 Mac said at 7:48 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I would make the deal you posted in a heartbeat. But more along the lines of QB 2014… I’d like to see 1st this year 1st 2014 and throw in a 3rd or 4th this year just to sweeten things up a bit.

  100. 100 D3Keith said at 6:31 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Yeah I posted virtually the same thing below re: KC. We really haven’t considered something obvious, that given a choice — whether the price was equal, comparable or not — that KC/Reid might just have preferred to get Smith.

    Trading down would be good. Trading for future picks usually is a better idea when your team has fewer needs — this is really the time to incorporate young guys and get them a year to develop. But no one ever regrets it once the next draft comes around and they have two firsts.

  101. 101 micksick said at 6:16 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    dee millnear and sean smith would make a good CB combo, both can tackle and press and dee has the speed to not look like nnamdi out there

  102. 102 micksick said at 6:17 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    id like to trade up from our 2nd round pick and go for the ND TE Eifert. Chip loves his TEs right???

  103. 103 TommyLawlor said at 6:23 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Chip had good success with TEs in Oregon. He’s able to move them around and be creative. I would expect he’ll add a body or two. Eifert would be a nice addition.

  104. 104 xlGmanlx said at 6:41 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I’m hoping by possibly not taking a QB, that it puts pressure on teams around 5-10 to try and jump up to make sure they get “their guy” if OT’s start coming off the board. If anything I think this drives the value up for non-QB’s, just my thought.

  105. 105 ICDogg said at 7:33 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    New candidate for an “impact” DT

  106. 106 TommyLawlor said at 7:48 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I’d like to get her and Jimmy Bama into a room together.

  107. 107 Baloophi said at 7:58 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Or QB??? That was an NFL arm…

  108. 108 Malcolm Jones said at 4:28 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    I knew I noticed that arm…is this Jamarcus Russell before he decided to come back???

  109. 109 Baloophi said at 11:48 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Sadly I think it’s Jamarcus Russell in the middle of his comeback…

  110. 110 Justin Sengstock said at 12:07 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    Before? That’s JaMarcus Russell now that’s he’s slimmed down!

  111. 111 ian_no_2 said at 9:57 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    That was her combine press conference.

  112. 112 ICDogg said at 11:16 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    They really need to have table tossing and chair catching added to the combine workouts.

  113. 113 Baloophi said at 2:21 AM on February 28th, 2013:


  114. 114 Malcolm Jones said at 4:25 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Did you see that footwork and how easily she took the Guard(the table) out of the play by showing pressure and then she dropped back into coverage and perfectly read the pump fake(the first missed chair) and then intercepted the ball(the chair she caught)….My only problem is when she was bluffing pressure she had pressure and could have went for the sack because there was no RB to chip her after she got in the back field, but I do like that she tried to go for a pick 6 though unsuccessful…. she could be an ALL PRO beside Fletcher and THorton if she continues to Flash…Just think this is what happened when she was told they didnt have hot wings at the combine.

  115. 115 ICDogg said at 9:37 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    It’s tough being a 3-gapper.

  116. 116 Ark87 said at 1:00 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    Now if we can teach Nick Foles to throw Folding chairs when under pressure we wouldn’t have to worry about his mobility.

  117. 117 SteveH said at 8:50 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    The rich get richer, super bowl team picks up 33rd overall by getting rid of superfluous player. Funny to think after all these years Alex Smith gives back the 1st overall pick 1 round behind where he was drafted.

  118. 118 laeagle said at 10:28 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    Funny, “the rich get richer” made me think back to the 92 Skins. I was going to school in Virginia at the time and had to put up with BS from the lamest fanbase in the NFC East. They were so pumped because not only had they just won the Super Bowl, they had the #4 pick in the draft thanks to a trade from the prior year.

    And then…

    Michael Westbrook (cue Nelson from the Simpsons: “Aah ha!”)

    M Westbrook’s sole lasting contribution to the NFL was to confuse announcers for years, who consistently failed when trying to get Brian’s name right.

  119. 119 SteveH said at 1:22 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Yes, Michael Westbrook scored many touchdowns for the Eagles in the 2000’s.

  120. 120 D3Keith said at 1:25 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    I hold a special place in my heart for Michael Westbrook. You’ll enjoy this story for the insight it provides on pack journalism.

    So I’m a cub reporter getting a chance to do some NFL stuff out at Redskins Park. Westbrook had apparently had some blowups or feuds with media guys and so no one ever asked him any questions.

    All of this was unbeknowst to me, and I must have been working on a story about wide receivers or something. I chat with Rod Gardner, then I walk on up to Michael Westbrook, who is just about dressed but still at his locker, and ask him if he has a second to chat. He says sure and answers all my questions. Couldn’t have been a nicer guy.

    By the time I’m on my last questions, literally the entire media horde has surrounded us. I didn’t find out til later that everybody was basically afraid of him, or just didn’t want to bother with the aloofness, so he hadn’t talked since the season prior. It was treated like a rare “get” but it was dumb luck. Sometimes ignorance is bliss!

    The NFL locker room is a kooky place. 90 percent of everyone in there is writing virtually the same stories and asking the same questions. It’s not hard to see how an athlete would get frustrated. Each 10-second soundbite is a part of anywhere from 2 to 10 minutes of questioning. Sometimes the dudes are basically naked, which is awkward. But the real shame is that many of the reporters are comfortable — I’ve been that guy sometimes — and only 1 or 2 guys have the balls to ask the questions fans really want the answers to.

    So that’s why when you find a blog that actually says something new or you start to like that one reporter who seems to get insight no one else does, you appreciate it so much. As repetitive and duplicitous as you think it might be, it’s worse: newspaper, radio, TV, independent blogs, team blogs and occasionally magazines or out of town media, all moving in a horde. And sometimes leaving in a horde to run up on the new guy who walks in the room before the last guy is finished his sentence.

  121. 121 Baloophi said at 2:21 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Great story!

  122. 122 Arby1 said at 9:36 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Yes, great story!

  123. 123 bdbd20 said at 6:30 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Actually, it was Desmond Howard that they drafted. Westbrook was drafted after several years of sucking (or Norving if you perfer)/

  124. 124 laeagle said at 10:29 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    I stand corrected. Still, Redskins suck.

  125. 125 xeynon said at 10:23 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Kaepernick is an exciting young player, but his style of play does make him vulnerable to injury, and the Niners now have zip behind him. I wouldn’t underestimate the risk for them.

  126. 126 Adam said at 1:13 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    It actually doesn’t bode well for them. QB/Coach combos who lose in the SB don’t have a good track record at getting back there and winning.

  127. 127 Judy Thomas said at 9:06 PM on February 27th, 2013:

    I don’t actually mind that trade. I would trade one of those second rounders as bait to move up next year if we were to go after a QB. Here’s what my 4 round mock would look like.

    1st – Jonathan Cyprien, S

    2nd – Kyle Long, OT/G

    2nd – traded for 2013 1st rounder

    2nd – Margus Hunt, DT/DE

    3rd – Robert Alford, CB

    3rd – Sio Moore, SAM

    4th – Montori Hughes, NT

  128. 128 T_S_O_P said at 3:44 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    I haves couple of thoughts going on; first Kelly may want to legitimate candidates at QB in camp because of the nature of his camps. That is why he didn’t release 7 and why we weren’t interested in trading Foles.

    Second, should Foles win out at QB, does that require different personnel at the skill positions to make up for his lack of running threat? I thinking of the guys on the roster up in Boston.

  129. 129 Kevin_aka_RC said at 9:32 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Need becomes more important after free-agency. If a team doesn’t get a certain position in March they may have to go get it in April. Ample opportunity for the Eagles to subsequently make moves .

  130. 130 CheesesteakWilly said at 10:45 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    How committed are the Jets to having Sanchez as their starter? If the 49ers get Revis, the Jets would have the ammo to move up ahead of Buffalo and Arizona to get Geno Smith. At 9, I’m assuming that one of Dion Jordan, Sharriff Floyd or Lane Johnson would be available. I would love to have Dion Jordan, but that may be a bit of a pipe dream since people don’t seem to be making a big deal about his injury. But it would be awesome to be able to get Dion Jordan and have another early 2nd or late 2nd and early 3rd to address the secondary.

  131. 131 Baloophi said at 11:46 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    I’d love to be able to trade down, too, but I worry that #9 only one of Lane Johnson will be available.

  132. 132 ICDogg said at 12:17 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    You never really can tell but I have a feeling that when the chips are on the line the top demand will be for pass rushers, O-tackles, and for a couple of QB-desperate teams, they might go for one of the QBs.

    So I think at #9 the best O-tackles and pass rushers will be off the board, maybe one of the quarterbacks as well, but a guy like Jordan may very well be available, as will Milliner and Warmack and Mingo and a couple of other people some are projecting in the high slots.

  133. 133 BlindChow said at 11:41 AM on February 28th, 2013:

    Wow, KC fans are not happy. What a turnaround! A week ago Andy Reid was the savior of the franchise; now they sound like Philly fans!

  134. 134 ICDogg said at 12:12 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    lol… actually, I think Reid did what he needed to do there.

  135. 135 ACViking said at 12:25 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    spot on.

    who exactly do the KC writers/fans contend Reid supposed to use at QB? Cassell or Quinn?

    Reid could have drafted the WV kid, but no one’s doing back-flips over him.

    I don’t think Reid had a choice.

    He *drafted* Alex Smith — who’s pulled himself together — in the 2nd Rd of 2013. Not a bad choice. And if the guy delivers, the Chiefs essentially forfeit a choice in 2014 for a very good QB.

  136. 136 austinfan said at 12:13 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    There is a perfect explanation for the Smith trade, MM did not follow AR to KC.
    If Reid is going to revert back to his ball control offense (remember, in 2002 he had an almost 50/50 run pass ratio with Feeley at QB and went 4-1 to salvage the season before McNabb returned), Smith would be a solid veteran QB to run it.

    Reid gave up for Smith less than Houston gave for Schaub, about what KC gave for Cassell and Zona for Kolb, Washington for McNabb and a little more than Seattle gave for Whitehurst. So given he got a proven 28 year old QB who can run a conservative, ball control WCO, he certainly didn’t overpay.

  137. 137 ACViking said at 12:20 PM on February 28th, 2013:


    Sound argument (as always).

    So why the hell was MM kept around here?

  138. 138 T_S_O_P said at 1:58 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    The eternal question, well at least on my part.

  139. 139 ACViking said at 12:26 PM on February 28th, 2013:


    Is Childress back with AR in KC?

    If not . . . what leads you to think AR will turn back to his late 2002 style (which he damn well should)?

  140. 140 Mac said at 12:59 PM on February 28th, 2013:

  141. 141 holeplug said at 12:55 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    If I could wager on the Chiefs pass ratio next year I’m going over 50%. Andy likes his pass plays.

  142. 142 ICDogg said at 2:01 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    If he reverts to a more traditional WCO like he had in the early 2000s, some of those pass plays are practically run plays.

  143. 143 shah8 said at 2:50 PM on February 28th, 2013:

    I’m surprised there wasn’t more mentions of the screams of horror from the KC fanbase…

  144. 144 Blaise said at 9:34 PM on March 3rd, 2013:

    NT Star in the 1st round. Thank you! {drops mic}